704 replies to this topic

[Anomalocaris]

Krasnopesky, on 10 April 2021 - 07:26 AM, said:

Navid does not speak for the entire Cauldron, he is just one voice and opinion in there amongst many. In that sense I also do not speak for the entire Cauldron but try to objectively impart the logic and reasoning used thus far. We have many diverse opinions on this game and balance, none of them are 100% correct or 100% incorrect as there are many ways you can approach balance and fun.

In summary: I have no hatred of lock-on weaponry and I want them to perform at a point where they are competitive with other options. I currently think they perform extremely well, but I also think they could have some rebalancing to make them perform more consistently. The majority of The Cauldron agrees with this to the best of my knowledge.

Thanks Krasnopesky. I still have concerns about the influence of lock-on opponents in the Cauldron, but I appreciate your measured response.

We will have to see what happens post patch. I cannot support the IS streak nerf. Even as a dps nerf, the spread among components makes that a weak argument I think.

Clan streaks is a wash that is close enough to need testing IMO.

ATM simply sounds less fun and makes LRMs more attractive IMO. I don't care for LRMs myself, haven't played them in years. But I really enjoyed the challenge of pushing up close to deliver a hammer blow with ATMs. Sometimes you got underrun, sometimes AMS gets you, but it was challenging and fun. We'll see how the patch goes, but it just seems less useful now.

[Aedryel]

Anomalocaris, on 10 April 2021 - 10:57 AM, said:

Thanks Krasnopesky. I still have concerns about the influence of lock-on opponents in the Cauldron, but I appreciate your measured response.

We will have to see what happens post patch. I cannot support the IS streak nerf. Even as a dps nerf, the spread among components makes that a weak argument I think.

Clan streaks is a wash that is close enough to need testing IMO.

ATM simply sounds less fun and makes LRMs more attractive IMO. I don't care for LRMs myself, haven't played them in years. But I really enjoyed the challenge of pushing up close to deliver a hammer blow with ATMs. Sometimes you got underrun, sometimes AMS gets you, but it was challenging and fun. We'll see how the patch goes, but it just seems less useful now.

With this:
-disproportional boost in AMS availability, by making them basically risk free (1HPS for LAMS, increased amount and unexploding ammo for the other),
-along with the general dmg nerf of missile weaponry,
-on top of the already existing lock-on nerfs,
-plus twisting ATMs into becoming beefed up LRMs with half the missiles/ton count,
-while trending towards removing them from the niche they were explicitly designed for (close-up hard hits)

I'm not convinced the cauldron guys are not biased against lock-on weapons.
You know what? I can adapt. I've always adapted to the misplaced/poorly executed balancing changes,
but in all fairness, if the effective (not average...!) dmg/ton ratio is nerfed on ATMs, I'm rightfully expecting to carry more missiles per ton of it.

Let's do some unprofessional casual math from the end-user perspective having an ATM18 setup in mind,
because big surprise, ATM48 rigs are still not the vast majority of ATM users:

ATM18s now, assuming all missiles connect:
<130 m: 0 dmg
130-270m: 54 dmg
270-500m: 36 dmg
>500: 21 dmg

ATMs post-patch:
<130 m: 0 dmg
130-270m: 45 dmg
270-500m: 36 dmg
>500: -> 27 dmg

Assuming you shoot once in every range bracket it's still a nerf, you gain 6 dmg on long ranges whereas you lose 9 close-up.
This quick calculation does not take in account however that AMS usage will be more available to the general populace, thus long range ATM usage will remain rare as a white raven which, if not offset by a boost in ammo count will deteriorate ATM utilization even worse.

The missile HP increase will not be able to keep up the pace with the increased AMS/team ratio especially knowing that the chance of losing missiles to AMS is generally speaking is somewhat directly proportional to the distance travelled under most match circumstances.

And while the differences in ATM average damage dealt post-pach is indeed negligible, this approach ignores the very niche the weapon was designed for in the first place.
The concept behind ATM (in my opinion, which is not necessarily the objective case) is taking the risk, going in hard, doing massive damage, and get rewarded for the increased risk taken.
Now, removing 1/6 of the damage from a weapon system where it's usage is the most appealing is a severe nerf pure and simple and:

"So if somebody is out in a ATM supernova and isn't able to get close to the fight they will now do more damage when firing out of optimal. Its similar to firing a ballistic weapon outside of optimal, you use the same amount of ammo, generate the same amount of heat, you do less damage but yet it does make sense to do it at times."

You got lost me here.
First, lock-on weps got gradually nerfed bottom deep due to abusive overboating, now you're stating this nerf balancing is needed to ensure abusive overboaters will have an easier time.
Please clarify this, I'm not entire certain WHAT your intention is.

Also, please keep in mind, MOST people don't go over a 27 tube count with ATMs and the course this patch is taking will hurt normal, as in non-abusive players the most.

Edit: Please also take into consideration to remove/reduce ATM minimum range in exchange for the damage drop from up close to at least give the chance for people tho shoot it more than once.
The bracket between 130-270 is narrow as it is, if you cripple the DPH, at least make up for it with the added chance for DPS.

Edited by Aedryel, 11 April 2021 - 02:36 AM.

[x Deathstrike x]

Thank you, Cauldron guys for your hard work and thank you Daeron and Matt for backing them up and to go through with these changes immediately on live servers
Here’s my feedback on the proposed changes. Most of them I think are fine.
Some I think allow one to build new nasty builds which I try to point out.

InnerSphereNews, on 01 April 2021 - 06:36 PM, said:

ER Micro Laser (Clan):
Heat penalty is removed

Good change, I guess there are few mechs that can make use of this limit.
Currently only the PIR comes to mind

InnerSphereNews, on 01 April 2021 - 06:36 PM, said:

Micro Pulse Laser (Clan):
Damage increased to 3 (from 2.7)
Range increased to 130m (from 90)
Heat penalty is removed

Interesting change. Would maybe make something like this viable:
https://thecauldron...._37ca219b_PIR-3
The concern I have with the PIR is it can do 82 damage within 2.6sec (no skills factored in).
I can hear various new players/LRM boats with tunnel vision scream from killed from behind already.
Lasers have the least audio indication when hit from behind.

Also this SCR build might be interesting:
https://thecauldron....df768_SCR-PRIME
I wont claim its overpowered but short range 15+ laser DPS is really nasty.

InnerSphereNews, on 01 April 2021 - 06:36 PM, said:

Small Laser (IS):
Damage increased to 3.75 (from 3.25)
Range increased to 160m (from 150m)

ER Small Laser (IS):
Damage increased to 3.75 (from 3.25)
Cooldown decreased to 2.65 (from 2.75)

Good changes

InnerSphereNews, on 01 April 2021 - 06:36 PM, said:

Small Pulse Laser (IS):
Damage increased to 4 (from 3.5)
Heat increased to 1.55 (from 1.35)
Cooldown increased to 2.1 (from 1.9)
Range increased to 135m (from 110)

Good change, but I would actually argue for 4.25 damage considering that the heat is increased as well.

InnerSphereNews, on 01 April 2021 - 06:36 PM, said:

Heavy Small Laser (Clan):
Laser duration decreased to 1.1 (from 1.2)
Range increased to 130m (from 115)

ER Small Laser (Clan):
Heat decreased to 3 (from 3.5)
Laser duration decreased to 1.0 (from 1.1)

Good changes.

InnerSphereNews, on 01 April 2021 - 06:36 PM, said:

Small Pulse Laser (Clan):
Damage increased to 5 (from 4)
Range decreased to 160m (from 165)
Cooldown increased to 2.4 (from 1.9)
Max range increased to 320m (from 297)

While I certainly like this change I find it a bit unfair that the heat is not increased as well.
The CSPL will now have almost a 2.5/1 DMG/Heat ratio which was never better.
I would give it heat of 2.5.

InnerSphereNews, on 01 April 2021 - 06:36 PM, said:

Medium Laser (IS):
Heat decreased to 3.25 (from 3.4)
Cooldown decreased to 3.2 (from 3.5)

ER Medium Laser (IS):
Heat decreased to 4 (from 4.5)
Cooldown decreased to 3.75 (from 4)

Good changes.

InnerSphereNews, on 01 April 2021 - 06:36 PM, said:

Heavy Medium Laser (Clan):
Cooldown decreased to 5.0 (from 5.5)
Laser duration decreased to 1.3 (from 1.45)

Good change, with 10% duration skill one can get the duration down to 1.17 sec which is on the level of a ERML without skill. I guess this will make this weapon much more useable.
My proposal would be to actually lower the range to 240m and lower the Cooldown by another 0.5 sec to put the CHML more apart from the CMPL which now also has 270m.

InnerSphereNews, on 01 April 2021 - 06:36 PM, said:

ER Medium Laser (Clan):
Heat decreased to 5.5 (from 6.3)
Cooldown decreased to 4.0 (from 4.5)
Laser duration decreased to 1.15 (from 1.25)

Great changes but a bit overpowered I would say. Back in the days 7 damage 6 heat ERML was the goto weapon due to its investment in terms of weight/slots. While it no longer has the short cooldown of back in the days we are closing in on the original state significantly. This ERML will also beat the original ERML in terms of damage to heat ratio: 6.5/5.5 > 7/6 so this ERML will be more heat efficient.

InnerSphereNews, on 01 April 2021 - 06:36 PM, said:

Medium Pulse Laser (Clan):
Damage increased to 7 (from 6.5)
Heat decreased to 4.5 (from 4.75)
Laser duration decreased to 0.8 (from 0.9)
Range decreased to 270m (from 330)
Max range increased to 540m (from 480)

I really like this change and I understand the rational to drastically decrease the optimal range to compensate for the buffs.

InnerSphereNews, on 01 April 2021 - 06:36 PM, said:

Large Laser (IS):
Cooldown increased to 3.5 (from 3.1)
Heat decreased to 6.7 (from 7.0)
Laser duration decreased to 1.0 (from 1.1)
Minimum heat penalty level increased to 5 (from 4) – Fire 4 with no penalty

Interesting change albeit I have a hard time differentiating 4xLL vs 3x LPL now that the LPL gets an optimal range increase to 400m.

4xLL
20 tons, 8 slots, 36 damage, 450m range 26.8 heat, 1sec duration

3xLPL
21 tons, 6 slots, 33 damage, 400m range, 21 heat, 0.75 sec duration

While there are certainly still differences I would call them marginal.

InnerSphereNews, on 01 April 2021 - 06:36 PM, said:

ER Large Laser (IS):
Heat decreased to 8 (from 8.75)
Cooldown increased to 4.0 (from 3.4)
Range increased to 700m (from 675)

Good change.

InnerSphereNews, on 01 April 2021 - 06:36 PM, said:

Large Pulse Laser (IS):
Damage increased to 11 (from 10)
Heat decreased to 7 (from 7.25)
Laser duration increased to 0.75 (from 0.67)
Range increased to 400m (from 365)

Very good change. The LPL definitely needed these buffs considering its high tonnage investment.
However, as pointed out the range is now too close to the LL.
My proposal would be keep the original range of 365m and give it 11.5 damage

InnerSphereNews, on 01 April 2021 - 06:36 PM, said:

Heavy Large Laser (Clan):
Damage increased to 18 (from 16)
Cooldown decreased to 5.5 (from 5.75)
Laser duration decreased to 1.45 (from 1.55)

Good change, although combined with the CMPL changes it will allow various clan laser builds to now approach 80 points alphas like this one:
https://thecauldron....934d1c2_MAD-IIC

InnerSphereNews, on 01 April 2021 - 06:36 PM, said:

ER Large Laser (Clan):
Damage increased to 11 (from 10.75)
Heat decreased to 10 (from 11.8)
Cooldown increased to 4.5 (from 4)
Range increased to 770m (from 740m)

Good change.

InnerSphereNews, on 01 April 2021 - 06:36 PM, said:

Large Pulse Laser (Clan):
Damage increased to 13 (from 12)
Heat decreased to 9.0 (from 10)
Laser duration decreased to 1.0 (from 1.09)
Range decreased to 550m (from 600)
Max range increased to 1100m (from 840)
Heat penalty multiplier decreased to x3 (from x4) – Less heat penalty.

I think this is one of the most interesting changes. With the heat reduced and the lower heat penalty one can now fire 3x CLPL for 39 damage but only 31.86 heat (4.86 ghost heat).
The 1.86 additional heat compared to pre-patch baseline of 30 heat without ghost heat or more then manageable. What I am worried are two points:

3x CLPL vs 4xCERLL
Yes, the CERLL have much more range but let’s be honest with TC1 + a bit of skill you get well beyond 600m which is more than enough for most maps. Combined with a potential duration of 0.9 sec with skill (the fastest burning CLPL ever) I would pick 3xCLPL over 4xERLL any time. And the best part is you can fire 3xCLPL twice for the heat 4xCERLL would generate when being alpha fired.

3x CLPL in general
While 2xCLPL for a combined 26 damage (back in the days CLPL) only caused moderate damage over longer distance. However, 3xCLPL for 39 damage is much more significant damage over longer ranges and can be combined with other laser to e.g. this:
https://thecauldron....9eca4_MAD-IIC-8
That’s the highest manageable laser alpha with the least ghost heat to ever exist to my knowledge.

InnerSphereNews, on 01 April 2021 - 06:36 PM, said:

Light PPC (IS):
Heat decreased to 4.5 (from 5.0)
Cooldown decreased to 3.0 (from 4)
Velocity increased to 1400 m/s (from 1200)
Minimum range removed.

PPC (IS):
Heat decreased to 9.0 (from 9.5)
Velocity increased to 1400 m/s (from 1200)
Minimum heat penalty level increased to 4 (from 3) – Fire 3 with no penalty.

Snub Nose PPC (IS):
Heat decreased to 7.0 (from 10)
Minimum heat penalty level increased to 4 (from 3) – Fire 3 with no penalty

Heavy PPC (IS):
Heat decreased to 13 (from 14.5)
Velocity increased to 1400 m/s (from 1200)

ER PPC (IS):
Heat decreased to 12 (from 13.5)
Heat penalty multiplier decreased to x4 (from x7) – Less heat penalty

I would say that all IS PPC changes are good. Maybe I would argue for 8.5 heat for the PPC.

InnerSphereNews, on 01 April 2021 - 06:36 PM, said:

AC5 (Clan and IS):
Heat decreased to 1.1 (from 1.4) (IS Only)
Heat decreased to 1.25 (from 1.4) (Clan Only)
Minimum heat penalty level increased to 5 (from 4) – Fire 4 with no penalty. (Clan Only)
Velocity increased to 1500 m/s (from 1300)
Burst shells decreased to 1 (from 2) (Clan only) --ammo per ton adjusted

While the changes for the IS side are negligible I would say the change from 2 shells to one is significant. Changing the shell number also “stealth-increased” the DPS of the C-AC5 because the cooldown does not start before all shells are released. Thus, the DPS increase is about 6.6%.
However, the more significant part is that clan now gets long range high DPS pin-point weapons which were reserved for IS up to now not considering gauss of course.
What I would be worried about are these:
https://thecauldron...._2003940a_DWF-B
In a way this is a derivate of the 8x AC2 Dire but I would consider this one even more dangerous because the reduced spread i.e. two shots 8xAC2 have a higher chance of hitting two different zones than 6xAC5.
https://thecauldron....48a2b3e3_MCII-B
For me this is a bit the 2x CGauss 2x CERPPC coming back through the backdoor. Yes the pin point damage of this build is only 40 (50) compared to 50 (60) of 2x CGauss 2x CERPPC but the 4xC-AC5 have double the DPS of 2xGauss.

InnerSphereNews, on 01 April 2021 - 06:36 PM, said:

AC10 (Clan and IS):
Heat decreased to 2.5 (from 2.75) (IS Only)
Velocity increased to 1300 m/s (from 1100)
Burst shells decreased to 2 (from 3) (Clan only) --ammo per ton adjusted

Good change I would say

InnerSphereNews, on 01 April 2021 - 06:36 PM, said:

AC20 (Clan and IS):
Heat reduced to 5 (from 6)
Velocity increased to 900 m/s (from 650)
Burst shells decreased to 3 (from 4) (Clan only) --ammo per ton adjusted
Minimum heat penalty level increased to 3 (from 2) – Fire 2 with no penalty. (Clan Only)

I would really argue for raising the ghost heat limit of IS AC 20 to two. This limit is a derelict of Boom Jaeger times and we have MUCH more dangerous stuff hopping around in the meantime like 2xHGauss.

C-AC20 still feels useless though even with these changes. I would propose to lower the cooldown by 0.5.
Due to the burst fire cooldown extension of 0.22 sec the the net cooldown gain over the IS version would only be 0.28 anyway.

InnerSphereNews, on 01 April 2021 - 06:36 PM, said:

Ultra AC2 (Clan and IS):
Heat decreased to 0.7 (from 0.8)
Jam chance decreased to 14% (from 15%) (IS Only)
Jam duration decreased to 2.5 (from 3.5) (IS Only)
Jam chance decreased to 16% (from 17%) (Clan Only)
Jam duration decreased to 2.75 (from 3.75) (Clan Only)

Ultra AC20 (Clan and IS):
Heat decreased to 6 (from 7)
Velocity increased to 800 m/s (from 700)
Jam duration decreased to 6 (from 7.5) (IS Only)
Jam duration decreased to 6.5 (from 8) (Clan Only)

LBX AC2 (Clan and IS):
Spread decreased to 0.25 (from 0.325)
Weapon slot size decreased to 3 (from 4)

LBX AC5 (Clan and IS):
Spread decreased to 0.4 (from 0.62)

All good changes I would say.
Only the LBX AC5 I would lower the Cooldown to 1.5 sec because it still feels pretty underwhelming.

InnerSphereNews, on 01 April 2021 - 06:36 PM, said:

LBX AC20 (Clan and IS):
Heat decreased to 4.0 (from 5) (IS Only)
Heat decreased to 4.0 (from 6) (Clan Only)

Great change it will solve the heat problem of one of my favourite front load builds which is:
https://thecauldron....7e1015c1_MCII-1

InnerSphereNews, on 01 April 2021 - 06:36 PM, said:

Rotary AC2 (IS):
Impulse (cockpit shake) decreased to 0.03 (from 0.04)

Rotary AC5 (IS):
Heat decreased to 3.25/s (from 4/s)
Velocity increased to 1300 m/s (from 1025)
Spread decreased to 0.19 (from 0.23)
Jam ramp-up time increased to 8.0 (from 6.0)
Impulse (cockpit shake) decreased to 0.03 (from 0.04)

Good changes I guess, but I cannot comment too much because I rarely run them.

InnerSphereNews, on 01 April 2021 - 06:36 PM, said:

Light Gauss Rifle (IS):
Damage increased to 10 (from 8)
Ammo per ton decreased to 20 (from 25)
Cooldown increased to 3.5 (from 2.6)
Velocity increased to 2200 m/s (from 2000)
Range increased to 880m (from 750)
Max range increased to 2200m (from 1500)
Heat penalty is removed.

The heat penalty removal is understandable but will allow for build like this:
https://thecauldron....9b32877e_FNR-5S
This is a 50 PPFLD build which in principle was intended to be avoided by having PPC and Gauss in the same heat penalty group. The old PPC/Gauss meta never did more than 50 damage as well if we disregard the splash of CERPPC.
You can even run a stealth version of that:
https://thecauldron....eaccf7c1_FNR-5S

InnerSphereNews, on 01 April 2021 - 06:36 PM, said:

Gauss Rifle (IS):
Weapon Health increased to 12 (from 10)
Cooldown decreased to 4.75 (from 5.0)
Ammo per ton increased to 12 (from 10)
Velocity increased to 2200 m/s (from 2000)
Range increased to 810m (from 660)
Max range increased to 2050m (from 1320)

Good change but I would argue for 4.5 sec cooldown.

InnerSphereNews, on 01 April 2021 - 06:36 PM, said:

Heavy Gauss Rifle (IS):
Weapon Health increased to 20 (from 15)

Gauss Rifle (Clan):
Weapon Health increased to 12 (from 5)
Velocity increased to 2200 m/s (from 2000)
Range increased to 810m (from 660)
Max range increased to 2050m (from 1320)

Good changes.

InnerSphereNews, on 01 April 2021 - 06:36 PM, said:

Light Machine Gun (Clan and IS):
Spread decreased to 0.3 (from 0.5) (IS Only)
Ammo per ton increased to 3600 (from 2500) (IS Only)
Spread decreased to 0.4 (from 0.7) (Clan Only)
Ammo per ton increased to 3200 (from 2500) (Clan Only)

I guess these changes will mostly benefit PIR-1, although some others are in as well.

InnerSphereNews, on 01 April 2021 - 06:36 PM, said:

Machine Gun (IS):
Ammo per ton increased to 2300 (from 2000)

Heavy Machine Gun (Clan and IS):
Range increased to 130 (from 100) (IS Only)
Ammo per ton increased to 1800 (from 1250) (IS Only)
Ammo per ton increased to 1600 (from 1250) (Clan Only)

Good changes.

That’s it with my feedback
Hopefully it was useful for you.

Edited by x Deathstrike x, 11 April 2021 - 06:33 AM.

[Anomalocaris]

Aedryel, on 11 April 2021 - 02:16 AM, said:

With this:
-disproportional boost in AMS availability, by making them basically risk free (1HPS for LAMS, increased amount and unexploding ammo for the other),
-along with the general dmg nerf of missile weaponry,
-on top of the already existing lock-on nerfs,
-plus twisting ATMs into becoming beefed up LRMs with half the missiles/ton count,
-while trending towards removing them from the niche they were explicitly designed for (close-up hard hits)

I'm not convinced the cauldron guys are not biased against lock-on weapons.
You know what? I can adapt. I've always adapted to the misplaced/poorly executed balancing changes,
but in all fairness, if the effective (not average...!) dmg/ton ratio is nerfed on ATMs, I'm rightfully expecting to carry more missiles per ton of it.
-snip-

"So if somebody is out in a ATM supernova and isn't able to get close to the fight they will now do more damage when firing out of optimal. Its similar to firing a ballistic weapon outside of optimal, you use the same amount of ammo, generate the same amount of heat, you do less damage but yet it does make sense to do it at times."

You got lost me here.
First, lock-on weps got gradually nerfed bottom deep due to abusive overboating, now you're stating this nerf balancing is needed to ensure abusive overboaters will have an easier time.
Please clarify this, I'm not entire certain WHAT your intention is.

Also, please keep in mind, MOST people don't go over a 27 tube count with ATMs and the course this patch is taking will hurt normal, as in non-abusive players the most.

Well said. Pretty much agree with the entire premise of your post. I think (and I suspect you agree) that the issue isn't really how hard ATMs hit right now. It's the ability to fire a massive amount without any meaningful penalty. The changes made hurt the people running ATM36/48 less than those running ATM24/27, and that's wrong. Leave the damage alone and massively increase GH penalty. A Veagle running ATM36 should top out the heat bar if they salvo all 36 from 0 heat, and an ATM48 Supernova should go into instant shutdown with some internal damage.

[Krasnopesky]

x Deathstrike x, on 11 April 2021 - 02:27 AM, said:

The heat penalty removal is understandable but will allow for build like this:
https://thecauldron....9b32877e_FNR-5S
This is a 50 PPFLD build which in principle was intended to be avoided by having PPC and Gauss in the same heat penalty group. The old PPC/Gauss meta never did more than 50 damage as well if we disregard the splash of CERPPC.
You can even run a stealth version of that:
https://thecauldron....eaccf7c1_FNR-5S

That’s it with my feedback
Hopefully it was useful for you.

Thanks for the detailed feedback Deathstrike, I have read through it all and agree with most of it.

I will just point out that IS Gauss + PPC was never an issue, the issue was clan side, specifically with builds that could either poptart with 2 cGauss + 1 cERPPC or Assaults (aka Kodiak 3) that could boat 2x cGauss + 2x cERPPC (50 pinpoint + 10 splash).

Also right now that Mech you linked can run a higher alpha build (2x AC10 + 2 HPPC for 54 front-loaded pinpoint damage) with more max DPS: https://mech.nav-alp...#9852bac6_FNR-5. The weapons even sync up really well velocity wise (1300 & 1400).

Edited by Krasnopesky, 11 April 2021 - 09:53 AM.

[DAEDALOS513]

Antares102, on 09 April 2021 - 01:02 PM, said:

What are you talking about? Weapons in arms have exactly the same heat as weapon anywhere else? Ah you mean you hit the terrain too often. Well another indication that you dont know what are doing. Hitting the ground being a problem is a typical low skill player indication. I also had that in the first few weeks when I started with MWO but at some point you learn to avoid it.

I can very well compare it because you dont need so much agility if you have more range and the low front profile of the MADIIC. Torso twisting is not necessary (so much) for MADIIC.

You sound very angry.. try to breathe.. this is just a game.. anyway, when I say arm weapons aren't worth the heat (in this case).. i mean too many times they are too low to hit anything or, many times they end up hitting terrain (wasting heat) or the tonnage they are taking up could be better used for dhs's (again, wasting heat).. if you are exposing that often to use such low arm weapons you are doing it wrong.. the sooner you learn this the better..

Yet again, you can't compare the madiic build with mine because not only does it pilot differently (like a boat) but your using a long range build on it while I am not..

[DAEDALOS513]

Navid A1, on 09 April 2021 - 02:16 PM, said:

We do run LRMs... A lot actually. The results are devastating. To the point that we basically feel bad for the enemy team.
I personally believe that LRMs are performing far beyond how they should. They are designed to frustrate your target on top of dealing alot of damage.
On the other hand, the hard counters are designed in a way to block an LRM user completely when they are in effect.

As I said before, the only reason we didn't change anything on LRMs was to see if higher performance from other weapons can narrow this giant gap. Then we get to see if LRMs need adjustment to their consistency by making them become hard-countered less, while at the same time reduce their peak performance in indirect fire mode with no specialized spotter. With a dedicated spotter (narc, TAG), they will still need to perform well.

This fits pretty well with our stated goal of bringing things up to the same level of high performing weapons... and LRMs and ATMs are sitting there right at the top.

Regarding ATMs... sure training ground Atlas doesn't move, has no friends and you can stand in front of it and shoot it till it dies... trades in this game does not happen like that. You usually have 3-4 seconds of shooting window around a piece of cover you are using, and each time you poke (or jump up) you are dumping 144 damage into your target, while your target is dumping 40. Two trades later, your target is dead, and you have just been scratched.

And for all that, ATMs really don't need that much tonnage investment either, Huntsman, Vapor Eagle, HBK-IIC-B, Summoner,... and the list continues, all can pack a huge firepower, run at 81 kph, and jump.

LRMS are not a threat whatsover.. unless taken by a 3 or 4 man of elite players and with narc.. which can be said about any weapon system really.. lrms taken by a rando is hardly op .. streaks taken by a rando is hardly op..

This is why you guys aren't thinking like the general player.. i've been saying this from the start.. you should not be directing the path of the game.

[DAEDALOS513]

Navid A1, on 09 April 2021 - 05:39 PM, said:

The thing that we wanted to do to them was to increase their indirect spread and increase their missile health a bit.

It makes it less cancer on the receiving end, and still remains satisfying for the player who is using it. Because let's be honest... nothing is more frustrating than being hard countered by an enemy mech that was dropped into a match randomly.

That's exactly what I suggested but why didn't you do it?

[DAEDALOS513]

katoult, on 10 April 2021 - 12:21 AM, said:

You may want to try out some dual IS LRM20 builds before the patch. AMS is virtually non-existant if properly countered.

You won't be getting that across though with that crowd. The anti-lockon unease is rampant among them. And by "them" i don't mean the two Goulash members who actively engage with us here but both the group as a whole and the environment that hangs out around them as their echo chamber.

As a note on why this connection comes up consistently - it would have helped if the goulash was not built entirely around unofficial MWO Comp infrastructure (Discord, Website...). I mean, it's understandable to use what you have, but if someone is told to go to the MWO Comp Discord to engage with The Cauldron then they'll automatically draw that association. Especially since - personal opinion - your decision processes aren't particularly transparent.

As a word of appreciation, i'm also not sure people understand the amount of work some of you put into this with regard to testing, communications etc. A tad more documentation on that and perhaps user tests might go a long way.

I get the same impression about their prejudice against lock-on weapons.. if the nerf was directed more towards balancing CW then, yet again, they are thinking like compers that usually play cw.. not the general player that mostly plays qp..

Last time I tried conversing with them at goulash headquarters months ago..i was basically told by several of them to 'leave' by use of words and meme's because I don't think like them.. i'm not saying they are all juvenile like that but it reinforces my view that many of their suggestions are coming from a place of immaturity.. where nerfing is considered anathema and 'buffs' are the only way to fix things.. little kids in a candy store.. nom nom

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 12 April 2021 - 06:35 AM.

[John Bronco]

DAEDALOS513, on 11 April 2021 - 11:12 AM, said:

I get the same impression about their prejudice against lock-on weapons.. if the nerf was directed more towards balancing CW then, yet again, they are thinking like compers that usually play cw.. not the general player that mostly plays qp..

Last time I tried conversing with them at goulash headquarters months ago..i was basically told by several of them to 'leave' by use of words and meme's because I don't think like them.. i'm not saying they are all juvenile like that but it reinforces my view that many of their suggestions are coming from a place of immaturity.. where nerfing is considered anathema and 'buffs' are the only way to fix things.. like little kids in a candy store.. nom nom

If you conversed in the same rude, recalcitrant, and narrowminded fashion you've done in this thread, then I am not surprised you were not well received on some discord.

[DAEDALOS513]

John Bronco, on 11 April 2021 - 11:50 AM, said:

If you conversed in the same rude, recalcitrant, and narrowminded fashion you've done in this thread, then I am not surprised you were not well received on some discord.

They were much worse than whatever rudeness you’ve seen me display here.. it was clear I wasn’t welcome..

[Lionheart2012]

Here is my response.

https://docs.google....dit?usp=sharing

[Krasnopesky]

Lionheart2012, on 12 April 2021 - 01:52 AM, said:

Here is my response.

https://docs.google....dit?usp=sharing

Excerpt from document:
Be that as it may, I have looked into the numbers of the proposal, and while I see some merit in it, there is room for improvement. In sum, their proposal appears to be an amalgam of solutions to address various gripes about “nerfing” weapons. However, it neglects to articulate a philosophy towards what balance in these weapons looks like. This is where my analysis comes in to see if we can make sense of where weapons values should be.

Thank you for the detailed feedback. I have quickly looked over all your feedback already, but I shall give it a closer examine later when I have more time.

I just wanted to point out that we have a clearly defined philosophy for our design approach: Make more weapon systems viable by improving them to be more competitive with the current top performing weapons. We have identified these top performing weapons as being: IS MPL, cERPPC, LBX-10, AC2, UAC5&10. As such balance for the other weapons will result in them competing in game with these strong weapons. (We are aware that IS streak 4s and 6s do not follow this philosophy and are looking at different options to balance them now).

While lore and both factions having a distinct role is important, it is not the primary focus of the coming patch. Likewise we do not want to directly buff weapon systems that are currently extremely strong (for example in your suggestions the IS MPL is going up in damage from 6.0 to 6.2, AC2s, IS UAC5s and UAC10s are receiving a cooldown buff). Looking at the current and historic meta and considering the quirks Mechs have is very important when considering balance.

Edited by Krasnopesky, 12 April 2021 - 06:10 AM.

[dario03]

Lionheart2012, on 12 April 2021 - 01:52 AM, said:

Here is my response.

https://docs.google....dit?usp=sharing

Lot of info, looks like you have reasoning to go with it. Will look it over more later and see what others have to say. I wouldn't call our proposal an amalgamation though. I mean maybe a bit since its multiple people working on very different weapon types but we did have goals in mind.

Edited by dario03, 12 April 2021 - 05:27 AM.

[Brizna]

I've been looking at the proposed changes and while I am no theory crafter nor a number cruncher I like most of the changes. Just a few points:

It's hinted agility also changes but the values are nowhere to be seen.
In this regard is there any special love for some of the most outrageously unwieldy mechs such a TBR, NightGyr...
Any changes to torso pitch?
I love that a lot of useless lasers are getting buffed, specially both versions of SPLs.

The change I can't agree with is ATMs. It's common knowledge for anyone who dedicates even just a few minutes to making functional builds that as a general rule making a mech with weapons to engage at all ranges is suboptimal (a lot) applying the same logic improving ATMs in the bracket they are worse but nerfing them where they are actually dangerous will in my opinion make them generally worse. I am concerned with this change.

[Krasnopesky]

Brizna, on 12 April 2021 - 08:58 AM, said:

I've been looking at the proposed changes and while I am no theory crafter nor a number cruncher I like most of the changes. Just a few points:

It's hinted agility also changes but the values are nowhere to be seen.
In this regard is there any special love for some of the most outrageously unwieldy mechs such a TBR, NightGyr...
Any changes to torso pitch?
I love that a lot of useless lasers are getting buffed, specially both versions of SPLs.

The change I can't agree with is ATMs. It's common knowledge for anyone who dedicates even just a few minutes to making functional builds that as a general rule making a mech with weapons to engage at all ranges is suboptimal (a lot) applying the same logic improving ATMs in the bracket they are worse but nerfing them where they are actually dangerous will in my opinion make them generally worse. I am concerned with this change.

Agility is not changing this patch, that is planned for a later patch. The unwieldy Mechs like the Timber Wolf and Night Gyr will be getting "special love". Torso pitch will be increased for a lot of Mechs too.

In regards to ATMs the rebalance was done to make them better vs AMS in close range. ATMs will now perform a lot better vs AMS at all brackets, but especially within their short range bracket. I have posted some examples before, but one particular example is 3x ATM12s shooting into 4 AMS. The ATMs will now do 67% more damage in their short range bracket firing through 4 AMS compared to the current game.

[Tomo Sukesada]

Krasnopesky, on 10 April 2021 - 07:26 AM, said:

Navid does not speak for the entire Cauldron, he is just one voice and opinion in there amongst many. In that sense I also do not speak for the entire Cauldron but try to objectively impart the logic and reasoning used thus far. We have many diverse opinions on this game and balance, none of them are 100% correct or 100% incorrect as there are many ways you can approach balance and fun.

What we identified as an excellent way to increase such a subjective idea as 'fun' was to increase the amount of viable and usable weapons (and as an extension for later patches, Mechs) and rebalance some weapons to work better at one role compared to another, or reduce mechanics we feel detract from the overall balance of the game.

In this regard a problem of Clan Streak missiles was identified that they often one hit Light Mechs, yet struggle against larger Mechs when they have to engage them. What we went with this patch was to increase the DPS and reduce the upfront alpha damage. Should this prove to not work, we have many other ideas and concepts to rebalance streaks in different ways, but all aiming towards that one concept. Similarly IS streaks were regarded as having too much DPS for a weapon system that is a 'fire-and-forget' homing weapon (this is in part due to missile quirks on some of the commonly taken IS SSRM boats). We are currently testing many different ways to rebalance and adjust these weapons, including testing many of the suggestions and feedback ideas given here.

(warning personal opinion incoming) I have played ATMs quite extensively in Quick Play, Faction Play, and Comp. Overall I really enjoy playing them but personally I found them to be far too feast-or-famine. The upfront damage at the close range bracket was ridiculous when compared to almost anything else I could reasonably equip on Mechs of a similar tonnage. However the drawback was AMS completely shut me down and made me useless if too many were present. In this regard the majority of the Cauldron agrees and as such we have reduced that large upfront damage to a level we feel is more reasonable and increased missile health to a point where we feel they are rebalanced rather than nerfed (in many cases they will now be stronger than they currently are and certainly more consistent).

We have many ideas on how to balance all lock-on weapon systems and it would have been excellent to have multiple versions of PTS to properly test them all out. As it stands I (personally) am quite happy with the current changes to lock-ons and will be testing them immediately when the patch drops. Should they prove to be nerfed (which is not the objective) further changes, based on objective feedback gathering and testing, will occur in May.

In summary: I have no hatred of lock-on weaponry and I want them to perform at a point where they are competitive with other options. I currently think they perform extremely well, but I also think they could have some rebalancing to make them perform more consistently. The majority of The Cauldron agrees with this to the best of my knowledge.

The way streaks work dictate it's optimal play style, which is hit-and-run. Decreasing the cooldown will allow us to fire subsequent volleys quicker but it will not change the fact that we still need to hit-and-run. The quicker cool down will in NO WAY counter the 25% nerf to the per volley damage. We won't be standing toe to toe with larger mechs as it would be suicide even with the quicker cooldown.

And I agree wholeheartedly with Lionheart with ditching the IS streak cooldown nerf. Per Lionheart :
Inner Sphere Streak SRMs are 50% heavier than their Clan counterparts, so their DPS/ton is significantly less even with the nerf to damage in the Clan Streaks.

And the claim that IS streaks have too much DPS for being a fire-and-forget weapon needs addressing. You have to remember the DPS is not pinpoint and is spread across the entirety of the mech. From that angle it becomes a lot of terrible DPS. While The Cauldron's claim of boosting underperforming weapons feels true for the systems being buffed, the nerfing of a weapon system (streaks) that has long been known as garbage is in direct contradiction to this. So, please stop repeating that claim.

You would garner more respect if you just came out and said, coordinated groups of streak mechs are causing issues in FP, so we are nerfing them. Or whatever the real reason is because it very, very much looks like bias against lock-on weapons. I assume you have looked at the actual number of players who play QP versus FP, right? Good, because that would mean you should probably make decisions based on where the bulk of your player base plays. Just a thought.

[dario03]

Tomo Sukesada, on 12 April 2021 - 06:32 PM, said:

The way streaks work dictate it's optimal play style, which is hit-and-run. Decreasing the cooldown will allow us to fire subsequent volleys quicker but it will not change the fact that we still need to hit-and-run. The quicker cool down will in NO WAY counter the 25% nerf to the per volley damage. We won't be standing toe to toe with larger mechs as it would be suicide even with the quicker cooldown.

And I agree wholeheartedly with Lionheart with ditching the IS streak cooldown nerf. Per Lionheart :
Inner Sphere Streak SRMs are 50% heavier than their Clan counterparts, so their DPS/ton is significantly less even with the nerf to damage in the Clan Streaks.

And the claim that IS streaks have too much DPS for being a fire-and-forget weapon needs addressing. You have to remember the DPS is not pinpoint and is spread across the entirety of the mech. From that angle it becomes a lot of terrible DPS. While The Cauldron's claim of boosting underperforming weapons feels true for the systems being buffed, the nerfing of a weapon system (streaks) that has long been known as garbage is in direct contradiction to this. So, please stop repeating that claim.

You would garner more respect if you just came out and said, coordinated groups of streak mechs are causing issues in FP, so we are nerfing them. Or whatever the real reason is because it very, very much looks like bias against lock-on weapons. I assume you have looked at the actual number of players who play QP versus FP, right? Good, because that would mean you should probably make decisions based on where the bulk of your player base plays. Just a thought.

Thanks for the feedback. I'll address some of the points.
Being a multiplayer game with many variables means that it is unlikely that a match will always allow for optimal play. So a buff that helps in sub-optimal situations is still a buff and can help offset a nerf to optimal. The higher dps allows the streak mech to not be as outgunned if it finds itself unable to escape the fight. There will also be other situations like being able to fire more often meaning you get more chances for backshotting mechs that don't want to take that fight. We believe that the buffs can be enough to offset the nerfs and make the cssrm less feast of famine. If it isn't then we have a couple of other ideas that could be tried later. (Originally on the pts lock-ons were planned to have a few different ideas tried.)

We are aware that ssrms are not pinpoint weapons. However neither is srm/srma especially at range. Streaks spread damage but unless something gets in the way they all hit. This allows them to do a lot of damage and the spread isn't always bad, depending on angle of attack, mech geometry, and what components are still on the mech it can be quite effective. For example doing a test against a Commando with 3ssrm6 at 290m resulted in the Commando losing both arms and having an open yellow CT before anything else took anything more than paint scratch damage. Thats pretty effective spread, and the tracking of streaks should make it easier to kill a moving Commando with them compared to the higher dps srma.

Edited by dario03, 13 April 2021 - 12:21 AM.

[Lionheart2012]

Krasnopesky, on 12 April 2021 - 05:15 AM, said:

Thank you for the detailed feedback. I have quickly looked over all your feedback already, but I shall give it a closer examine later when I have more time.

I just wanted to point out that we have a clearly defined philosophy for our design approach: Make more weapon systems viable by improving them to be more competitive with the current top performing weapons. We have identified these top performing weapons as being: IS MPL, cERPPC, LBX-10, AC2, UAC5&10. As such balance for the other weapons will result in them competing in game with these strong weapons. (We are aware that IS streak 4s and 6s do not follow this philosophy and are looking at different options to balance them now).

While lore and both factions having a distinct role is important, it is not the primary focus of the coming patch. Likewise we do not want to directly buff weapon systems that are currently extremely strong (for example in your suggestions the IS MPL is going up in damage from 6.0 to 6.2, AC2s, IS UAC5s and UAC10s are receiving a cooldown buff). Looking at the current and historic meta and considering the quirks Mechs have is very important when considering balance.

Thank you for taking the time to review this alternate proposal. And while this may get into the realm of asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, "Mak[ing] more weapon systems viable...." sounds to be more of a goal, and less of a design philosophy. As a philosophy, it is more of a tautology because improving weapons to be more competitive with current top performers is making them more viable. Further, it fails to articulate independent tenets to be applied to the data set and achieve results. By contrast, the analysis I provided points to lore and the varying design philosophies of the Clans and the Inner Sphere as a base. And if lore is not a primary focus of the upcoming patch, then it may be a weakness in the argument being proposed by the Cauldron.

Turning to the specifics of your commentary:

I can get on board with keeping the IS MPL damage at 6.0. The change in damage was only a modest 3.33% increase, and it was intended to keep performance in a close proximity to that of the Clan version. However, by keeping the damage at 6.0 for the IS MPL, it may open a niche for the IS ERML, based on the DOR metric.

We also agree on the CERPPC and that it does not need any changes. I will also agree, following a review of the metrics (Damage/heat, DPS/Ton, and DOR) that the LB10-X does not need any changes, although I never proposed any.

With AC2s, UAC5s and UAC10s, I would very much like to see the data that supports the assertion that they are top performing weapons. My experience in upper tier QP has not seen much use of the IS AC2, where they would necessarily need to be boated on a Mauler, King Crab, Corsair, or an Annihilator. The Clan version is more popular and has been popularized by streamers on the Rifleman IIC-2 and the modified Direwolf Ultraviolet. However, pilots often substitute the Clan LB2-X because of the better heat profile. The UAC5/10 meta is powerful and it has led to frequent use in the Kodiak 3 (not so much recently), the Madcat MkII B, and modified to a 3:1 ratio in a Blood Asp. And while the IS versions could be mounted in an Annihilator or a Fafnir, these mechs predominantly use the Heavy Gauss brawling meta. In fact, the Nightstar 9P can mount these weapons using a 255 standard engine, but this is not even a thing.

https://thecauldron....6d58ef34_NSR-9P

This suggests that the UAC5/10 meta is really a clan phenomenon, especially since it is easier for Clan mechs to mount the Ultra Autocannons. My suggested changes make Inner Sphere Autocannons and Ultra Autocannons more competitive, but do not change their essential bulk. Hence, they do not break the balance. And the data bear this out:

Autocannons Damage/Heat



Even with my suggested values, the heat efficiency of the Ultra Autocannons still falls within a narrow range, and the IS versions only have a modest advantage of the Clan versions. This fits with the philosophy of IS weapons being cooler and compensates for the fact that Inner Sphere 'Mechs will mount fewer heat sinks, generally.

Autocannons DPS/Ton



Using the DPS/Ton metric, my suggested cooldown values keep the Clan Autocannons almost universally in a superior position. The only anomaly is in the Clan Autocannon 20, where the three pellet burst impacts the DPS/ton slightly. However, the Cauldron proposal compensates by allowing Clan pilots to fire two of these weapons simultaneously, while Inner Sphere pilots would fire to Autocannon 20s in quick succession, essentially duplicating the burst characteristic found in Clan Autocannons.

Autocannons DOR



Finally, we see in the DOR, that the cooldown buffs to IS Autocannons don't generally change the superiority of Clan Autocannons because of their range superiority. Inner Sphere UAC5s and UAC10s are exceptions, but the few 'Mechs that can mount the meta on will be significantly slower and less agile than the Madcat MkII and the Kodiak with their larger engines.

For these reasons, the changes are justified.

Edited by Lionheart2012, 13 April 2021 - 10:07 AM.

[Brownshweiger4]

Than nerf to ATM ridiculously hard and pointless. ATM will be instantly unusable since that 3/m damage was only purpose of using it.
After hard nerf of close range ATM damage and boost to SRMs ATM will just extinct.
long range damage not matter at all, ATM not have high firing arc and just cannot be fired at long range.

Edited by Brownshweiger4, 13 April 2021 - 03:50 AM.